Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Tim Berners-Lee Defends Auction of NFT Representing Web's Source Code (theguardian.com) 65

Tim Berners-Lee has defended his decision to auction an NFT (non-fungible token) representing the source code to the web, comparing the sale to an autographed book or a speaking tour. From a report: The creator of the world wide web announced his decision to create and sell the digital asset through Sotheby's auction house last week. In the auction, which begins on Wednesday and will run for one week, collectors will have the chance to bid on a bundle of items, including the 10,000 lines of the source code to the original web browser, a digital poster created by Berners-Lee representing the code, a letter from him, and an animated video showing the code being entered.

"This is totally aligned with the values of the web," Berners-Lee told the Guardian. "The questions I've got, they said: 'Oh, that doesn't sound like the free and open web.' Well, wait a minute, the web is just as free and just as open as it always was. The core codes and protocols on the web are royalty free, just as they always have been. I'm not selling the web -- you won't have to start paying money to follow links. "I'm not even selling the source code. I'm selling a picture that I made, with a Python programme that I wrote myself, of what the source code would look like if it was stuck on the wall and signed by me. "If they felt that me selling an NFT of a poster is inappropriate, then what about me selling a book? I do things like that, which involve money, but the free and open web is still free and open. And we do still, every now and again, have to fight to keep it free and open, fight for net neutrality and so on."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tim Berners-Lee Defends Auction of NFT Representing Web's Source Code

Comments Filter:
  • Agree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jiriw ( 444695 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @10:39AM (#61513004) Homepage

    How can you not agree with that statement. Writing code is a creative process. Writing beautiful code can even be considered art (or solid engineering, whatever you prefer - building a solid, well functioning and beautiful bridge is both too). So why can authors of books sell signed copies and not Tim Berners-Lee do someting virtually the same?

    If Sun was still Sun and not that other company, I bet they could have made a killing selling NFTs of originally author-signed pieces of the Java API. And nobody would mind that. Least of all Google, to name one with keen interest in that API.

    • Except in the case of Java APIs, NFT sales do not convey a licensing or copyright agreement. Personally I think Oracle has no case on the APIs but there is a distinction between a NFT and a license agreement. As Berners-Lee stated, selling a NFT is more like selling an autographed copy of a work.
      • Except in the case of Java APIs, NFT sales do not convey a licensing or copyright agreement.

        They don't in any case.

      • I hate that the APIs are copyrighted by Oracle but the law is very much on Oracles side. A COLLECTION of APIs can be copyrighted. An individual one can't. This is the same for cook books and dictionaries. The individual entries can't be copyrighted but the collection can be. There are lots of things wrong with copyright (and patent) laws but the way the laws are currently written they favour Oracle.
      • by bwt ( 68845 )

        You might have missed it: Oracle has no case because the Supreme Court ruled for Google. Using APIs is fair use in the US now.

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      They still can. Well, not Sun, because it doesn't exist, but those original authors could sell all the NFTs they want.

      • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
        Only if the copyright was assigned to them, which it may not have been. I've written plenty of code, but copyright was assigned to my employer, not me.
    • Any normal person trying to sell some source code would be living in fear of their employer for which it was developed, at the time it was written.

      He gets all the credit for writing it, he deserves this. But he does not own it to do what he wishes, it's the property of CERN an org that is funded by taxpayers money from around the world.

    • But that is exactly why Tim Berners-Lee should not (possibly legally cannot) do this. Because code is copyrightable, and CERN owned the copyright and then gave it away to the public domain. So if anyone in the world does not own this source code, it is the man who explicitly signed away all rights it it in his employment contract.

      Tim can sell copies of his book, because he owns the copyright to it, he cannot sell copies of this source code because he does not own the copyright to it, it is that simple.

      • Copyright laws in some jurisdictions grant authors moral rights in addition to the economic rights in their works. Moral rights are concerned with the natural and inherent rights of a creator, and include the right of anonymity (the right of the author to remain anonymous or to adopt a pseudonym); the right of integrity (to prevent distortion, mutilation or modification of the work); and the right of association (to be credited for the work).

        Berners-Lee, if he retains moral rights, might be said to be legit
        • Right of association means he gets accredited with authorship. So if he wanted to hold a signing event. He could sell his signature to whoever, he could sign printouts of this source code. That would be great, but to pretend that he deserves the right to sell this work is delusional imo.
          And he does not seem to have the right to prevent modification of the web. I would like to see him try suing everyone who has updated the web architecture in the last 20-30 years.

          • He is, in effect, selling a signed attestation that he is the author of the work. That is different from selling the work. Also, selling the work doesn't make any sense, since it is all free-and-open-source.

            He has every right to do this. It's no different, conceptually, then him selling a smiling picture of himself standing next to a printout of his code.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    bitcoin boomer: [Mints coin early on, does a "HODL" for 12+ years]
    (looks at self in the mirror) "I'm so handsomely brilliant!"

    Artist: creates art; makes a single NFT for it and auctions it off in 3 days; makes $1Million.
    bitcoin boomer: "People that do NTFs are such fucking morons!"

    • "People that do NTFs are such fucking morons!" maybe not the ones that sell NFT's, but I might consider the ones that buy NFT's

      NFT = Nothing fraking tangible
  • by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @10:53AM (#61513054)

    Haters gonna hate.

    Most people are stupid.
    Many others are narrowly capable (for example techincally adept and socially retarded, or socially adept and technically retarded).

    You can't please everyone so piss on human obstacles then live your life. Sir Tim did nothing needing defense. The hair-shirt superstitionst crowd have a secular ultra-leftist equivalent of equalliy insane utopians.

  • by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @10:56AM (#61513062) Homepage

    The summery states he is selling the source code, as well as a image of it, while the quote from him states that he explicitly is not selling the source code.

    Also if he sold those two things to different people, the one would be in breach of copyright.

    • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @11:00AM (#61513080)
      He is not selling the rights/ownership of the source code; he is selling a copy of the source code. That is the difference. Like he stated it is not different than an author selling an autographed copy of his/her book. The buyer does not get copyright ownership or right to republish that work.
      • And what gives him the right to sell a copy of the source code? You can sell a copy of a book when you own the copyright to the book and the book has not been licensed with any free and open license that prohibits the for-profit use of it.
        Could I sell an NFT of Ubuntu's source code? Or are we saying that the web is literally owned by this one man who is legally able to use it for-profit in any way and at anytime?

        • by Whibla ( 210729 )

          And what gives him the right to sell a copy of the source code?

          "The source code behind the world wide web and its first browser, which were conceived and coded by Berners-Lee between 1989 and 1991, was never patented. Instead, it was released for free into the public domain by Cern, the particle physics laboratory in Switzerland where the British scientist worked at the time."

          It's public domain. Anyone can sell a copy of it, provided they can find a buyer. Of course, not being the person who wrote it, and it being freely available, might make finding a buyer rather dif

          • It was his analogy. Tim Berners-Lee said that him selling a copy of this source code was the same as him selling copies of his book. It would seem like Tim either believes that he owns the copyright of this source code, is really bad at explaining himself, or is trying to defraud people.

            • by Whibla ( 210729 )

              It was his analogy. Tim Berners-Lee said that him selling a copy of this source code was the same as him selling copies of his book.

              It's odd that you acknowledge it's an analogy, then go on to take that analogy at its literal meaning.

              It would seem like Tim either believes that he owns the copyright of this source code, is really bad at explaining himself, or is trying to defraud people.

              Or, for a 4th option, your understanding of how analogies work is faulty. However, I'll concede it may also be option 2, as you listed them.

            • There's a fundamental misunderstanding about NFT's . They are fundamentally NOT a transfer of copyright. To try and elaborate on TBL's analogy, me buying an NFT is like going into a book shop and buying a copy of "Harry Potter". I don't now own the copyright for "Harry Potter", but i do own a copy of the written work. I can then, fully legally, sell that copy of "Harry Potter" to whatever Tom, Dick or Harry i wish, but J. K. Rowling still owns the copyright. That's essentially what an NFT is.

              Yes, NFT's are
        • by xalqor ( 6762950 )

          what gives him the right

          Tim wrote the original code while at CERN. Because it was for work, CERN owned the copyright. But CERN later placed the code into the public domain, so nobody owns the copyright to the original code now.

          Could I sell an NFT of...

          Yes, you just have to find a buyer. NFT doesn't have anything to do with copyright. The meaning of an NFT is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

          And if you are interested in the real thing (in contrast to an NFT representing it), open source licenses like MI

        • The code in question is in the public domain so anyone has a right to copy it. You could create a NFT of it and sell it. I feel that his NFT is more valuable to computer geeks because he wrote the code and it is the original version. As for Ubuntu, I would consult with a lawyer on if that is legally permissible.
      • by brunes69 ( 86786 )

        He's not even selling a copy of the code because that is not what an NFT is.

        NFTs don't put the actual object on the blockchain. The object is just at a URL.

        The NFT is just a token that says you own a unique link to that URL.

        It may sound dumb but that is exactly what an NFT is.

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @11:04AM (#61513094)

      People don't understand what NFTs are. *Both* statements are wrong. He's selling NFTs, not source code or even images of source code.

      I can sell an NFT for the Linux kernel source code if I want to because an NFT is just the digital equivalent of a certificate with a URL printed on it.

      • Ding ding ding. People don't understand NFTs. The degree to which an NFT determines exclusive rights is only based in how the usage of an NFT relates to organizations that manage more than digital ownership. This means an NFT could in theory represent something like a deed or a lease but only when a governing body embraces it as such. Since no governing body of copywrite is involved here, this is totally artwork which as you say is totally a matter of that URL attached.

        The mechanism has a lot of potential b

      • Well that also contradicts the summery.

        > you won't have to start paying money to follow links

        If he is not selling the source code, then he is selling a URL; Something he just claimed is free and open.

        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Again, no.

          He's selling a digital certificate that happens to contain a URL. Anybody can follow that URL and download whatever they find there (if they find anything: presumably all these NFT URLs are going to go offline sometime in the future when the host gets tired of hosting them for free).

          The NFT is just a sign with a URL printed on it and Tim Berners-Lee's signature.

  • NFTs give a way for people who do something great to get rewarded. TBL deserves to make some money. Good for him. I hope this goes for a lot. I also hope his NFT gives him a cut of any future sales.

  • While NFTs are inherently moronic from where I am sitting -- ephemeral memorbilia doesn't do much for me -- this is 100% nothing like what they are representing.
  • by cellocgw ( 617879 ) <cellocgw@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday June 23, 2021 @11:13AM (#61513138) Journal

    The real problem is that NFTs are just the latest branch of "art" that is being used to launder money. Just as with physical paintings or sculptures, the "market price" is based more on how much money someone wants to move from illicit to licit state. It's tough to fault Tim B-L for cashing in, but it's still supporting criminals.

    • What? The only way laundering money works is if the criminal or an associate control it afterwards.

      Such as: criminal A conspires with criminal B to buy a $5 paperback on eBay for $500, followed by some scheme where the 'clean' proceeds are split between A and B (or A is getting some other benefit, such as a reciprocal deal within a network of launderers).

      But unless you're claiming that Tim is knowingly and deliberately running a criminal enterprise (or something equally bizarre like this being a way
  • and I can make money, what could go wrong?

  • TEH WEB DAILY USE TAX is coming !

    Oh Noes !

    Is /. accessible over gopher:// [gopher] ?

  • Art is in the eye of the beholder. I hope he gets rich.
  • For all those complaining about money laundering, art has always been a way to do that and to avoid taxes. Don't believe me, go take a look at Capital Gains laws and how they apply to "personal property", which btw does not include stocks, or houses, or other assets, but does include your stamp & art collection. Or how bout getting a loan on your art collection, which then you can spend without paying any income tax on it. Meanwhile, loaning out he collection to a museum and getting further tax credit d

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...